9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Penalty under Section 271B of the IT Act for not obtaining audit report as required under Section 44AB. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the CIT(A) order pertaining to the assessment year 1988-89. The main issue was whether the penalty under Section 271B of the IT Act, for not obtaining the audit report as required under Section 44AB, was sustainable. The assessee argued that they had obtained the audit report in time but failed to file it along with the return. The Departmental Representative contended that the audit report was not obtained within the stipulated time and was ante-dated. The Tribunal examined the facts and circumstances, including the loss of records in transit, and the statement of the auditor confirming the audit. The Tribunal rejected the objection that the penalty order was passed before the assessment order, stating that the penalty proceedings and assessment proceedings are separate. It was noted that the penalty was initiated for not filing the audit report along with the return but was ultimately levied for not obtaining the report within due time. The Tribunal held that the default was excusable, and any penalty based on technicalities could not be sustained. The assessee relied on a decision where a delay in obtaining the audit report due to records being destroyed in a fire was considered a reasonable cause for delay. The Tribunal found this decision supportive, emphasizing that penalty proceedings were completed before the assessment order in that case as well. The Tribunal concluded that the Department did not thoroughly investigate the loss of records and the auditor's confirmation of submitting the audit report as required. Therefore, the penalty was deleted, and the appeal by the assessee was accepted.
|
